How can we in Austin reduce our dependence on oil? (Howe: wage, live)

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by eileenkeeney

Yes they are.
Many even look for ways to justify their behavior.

Look at the effort going into promoting the idea that Global Warming is a hoax.
Global Warming is one of many future issues related to our fuel use, but yet it seems to get maximum attention (Either Pro or Anti); while more obvious consequences of our lifestyle seem to get far less press.
(Personally I am very baffled that so many people have any "belief" on a scientific issue at all, and baffled that the "belief" seems to split right down political lines.)

There is an anti-mass-transit, anti-alternative-fuel, anti-anything-supported-by-the-left movement, that I don't understand.

Man made GW is the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. We've almost turned the tide and in a few years we will all laugh about this decade when the money and power hungry idiots like Al Gore convinced millions to spend more money on a problem that does not exist.

This earth has been warming and cooling for a long time before man began burning fossil fuels. Our current warming trend has already reversed itself.

And by the way, with global population over 6 billion now and climbing to 9 billion soon we will never make a dent in the production of carbon. The fastest way to reduce carbon is to reduce the population.

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Man made GW is the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. We've almost turned the tide and in a few years we will all laugh about this decade when the money and power hungry idiots like Al Gore convinced millions to spend more money on a problem that does not exist.

So I am assuming that your IQ is higher than Al Gore's?

What are your credentials, and scientifically why are you convinced that Global warming is a hoax.

If it is not your knowledge of the science, and your collection and analysis of data, that is the basis of your view; can you please tell me what is?

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

This earth has been warming and cooling for a long time before man began burning fossil fuels. Our current warming trend has already reversed itself.

How do you know the warming trend has reversed itself?

Since the experts do not agree, and you are so sure you know what the truth is, I am curious how you come to your own conclusion.
Maybe you are more of an expert (have more knowledge and/or better data) than the other experts.

Personally I don't know if the earth is warming or if it is cooling, or how bad the carbon problem really is.
But I do see the more obvious effects of our production and consumption of oil based products.

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

And by the way, with global population over 6 billion now and climbing to 9 billion soon we will never make a dent in the production of carbon. The fastest way to reduce carbon is to reduce the population.

So going back to the original question, that started the thread, can I conclude that your solution, for reducing dependence on oil, is to decrease the population?

How do you propose we do this?

[CptnRn]

Getting back to the original topic, what can we do here in Austin to reduce our dependence on oil.

Looking at the poll results over 60% of the people who voted say no to the question "Could you car pool". I am honestly surprised, I suspect many of those who answered COULD car pool, but its just inconvenient, so they don't want to. This may be our biggest hurdle to overcome, our unwillingness to sacrifice a little convenience for the greater good.

We rationalize our choices and justify continuing our bad habits, as long as we can afford it, we keep doing what is easiest for ourselves. Even if we know in the long run its a bad choice for us.

Yes some of us are making the right choices. I'm seeing more and more scooters and bicycles on the streets of Austin every day. I applaud those people who are making those choices. One of the things we need badly is for shower rooms to be provided at peoples work places so they can freshen up if their bicycling to work in the morning makes them all sweaty, that is a terrible way to start the day when you work in an office environment.

[eileenkeeney]

My work does provide a shower area, we even have a workout room and a pool.
I thought a lot of work places did that.

For those who said No, it would be interesting to see the reasons.
Maybe it is time.
Maybe no co-workers live near them.

[Moonlady]

My work does not provide showers and we have over 1500 employees. We had a special reason for picking our building site even though it wasn't close to work. However, 16 years ago when we built, there wasn't near as much traffic and gas was cheap. Unfortunately, we can't sell our house and buy something comparable closer to work. Even if we downsized, the taxes would kill us because the value of our house has increased faster than the 10 percent cap. Most people at work live in RR or Cedar Park or somewhere NW. It's nearly impossible to find another person who lives this direction AND who understands when you have to work an extra thirty minutes to get something done. Even when my husband and I were working together we didn't commute together because our hours were so disparate. At this point, my only hope is to find a job closer to home.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by eileenkeeney

So going back to the original question, that started the thread, can I conclude that your solution, for reducing dependence on oil, is to decrease the population?

How do you propose we do this?

I do think the best long term solution to improving our environment is to stop population growth. Here in the US, we could phase out all financial incentives for growth such as tax breaks for dependents and maybe even shift the school burden from all tax payers to those who have children in school. If people had to pay the full cost of having children, growth would be reduced over time.

We should stop all short term aid to the countries that cannot sustain their population. We should stop shipping tons of grain to these countries which only postpones their problems. Refocus aid efforts on sustainability and maybe tie aid to their efforts to stop population growth.

In nature, population is controlled by starvation. Humans try to control this part of nature and the effects are devastating.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by eileenkeeney

So I am assuming that your IQ is higher than Al Gore's?

What are your credentials, and scientifically why are you convinced that Global warming is a hoax.

If it is not your knowledge of the science, and your collection and analysis of data, that is the basis of your view; can you please tell me what is?

Al Gore may have an above average IQ but that is meaningless. Al is laughing all the way to the bank. IQ is not the issue.

The credible sources for doubting man made global warming are readily available on the web. Just look for them. I'll give you a few sites to get you started.

"The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain." THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

The Cause of Global Warming is not Carbon Dioxide or Humans. (http://nov55.com/gbwg.html - broken link)

Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Hoax? An editorial by James A. Peden

The Global Warming Hoax

[HappyTexan]

Urban sprawl is not conducive to carpooling or mass transit.
Dense urban areas are better suited to the no-auto life.

I grew up and worked in NYC and never needed to drive until I left.

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Al Gore may have an above average IQ but that is meaningless. Al is laughing all the way to the bank. IQ is not the issue.

The credible sources for doubting man made global warming are readily available on the web. Just look for them. I'll give you a few sites to get you started.

I don't need more sources of one view or the other.

It is not a lack of published (seemingly credible) sources that state your view, that I was questioning.

The point I was making, is that there are also numerous published (seemingly credible) sources that state the opposite.

My main points (which you seem to have missed) are:
1) When experts do not agree, why do non experts choose to have such strong beliefs as to which experts are right?

2) There are enough obvious (non controversial) negative effects of burning fossil fuels, to justify a strong effort toward decreasing that behavior.


The combination of IQ, education, and how much effort you have put into collecting and studying data is important; when expressing a strong view on a controversial subject involving the interpretation of scientific data.
We are not discussing philosophy.
Even if you are just interpreting the data others have published, your ability to understand that data is effected by a combination of your IQ and education.
(Education, as I am using it, includes not just formal, but self taught as well).

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by eileenkeeney

My work does provide a shower area, we even have a workout room and a pool.
I thought a lot of work places did that.

For those who said No, it would be interesting to see the reasons.
Maybe it is time.
Maybe no co-workers live near them.

You could car pool with me everyday, if you wanted to go pick up some flooring and go help me install it, free of charge of coarse.

Not everyone is an employee, working for someone else in an office environment, that has co-workers.